Free Market Society

[Lieutenant_kettch]

yes, of course it was covered, i just didn't agree with it, IMO, it would eventually balance out, i learned long ago that professors are biased, so i use the information they provide and stake my own claim, unlike some people who just agree with what they are taught

[ET Warrior]

Petty insults ignored, I'd like to point out that you seem to be making up the balancing argument without any actual factual evidence to support it. If you could provide some sort of evidence that a monopoly would in fact work out the way you say it would I would be more willing to accept your view.

 

And also, how long is eventually? Things would balance out in a week? a few months? Years? even if it did balance out the economy could potentially be so devastated that the recovery would also take years, meaning that allowing monopolies could ruin our economy for over a decade.

[Lieutenant_kettch]

alas, my predicament, monopolies have not been allowed to exist for extrended periods of time, it is a hypothesis, same as the hypothesis of a military, etc. just random ideas, and i have no factual evidence because apure monopoly has never been allowed to exist for extended periods of time....

 

edit: and those petty insults were not directed towards you or any of the people who actually discuss their beliefs, but to the people who post an agreement, and nothing more

[ET Warrior]

So you'd be willing to gamble the entire american economy on a guess which you cannot support with any form of facts?

[SkinWalker]

Related to this discussion, several major cellphone companies are about to dominate the national cellphone market. I heard the story in passing on the radio the other day (NPR if anyone wants the source) and I did a quick check for it, but haven't found anything else.

 

Basically, the three companies are poised to take over the national markets (Cingular, Sprint, AT&T?) and this will create a defacto monopoly that will exclude smaller companies (Nextel, etc.?). The effect will be to drive up prices on services and end a lot of perks we've come to love, such as unlimited long-distance.

 

I think on the subject of monopolies, overall, they're a bad idea since they can influence the market as a whole. But whether this stifles or promotes innovation is debateable. I think that the telephone monopolies of the pre-1980's had the effect of stifling innovation since telephones and services remained very much the same for a couple of decades. I remember using rotary phones even in the 1980s and in 1984 I lived in a town that didn't have touchtone capability. Today, that town probably has DSL.

 

Monopolies also have a way of affecting other industries, the railroad industry (there were only a few major railroads, smaller ones were effectively squashed) had high steel demands, gave rise to steel companies. These were few, again, squashing the smaller companies through buy-outs or competitive prices.

 

True monopolies are rare (one product from only one company/source), but even defacto monopolies (a very few products from a very few sources) have a way of influencing markets. Positively or negatively. In the end, the market prices will always be controlled by the consumer. If the market can't bear the price, the consumers will stop buying and new markets will emerge.

 

Capitalism is probably the most driving force in the development of civilation, so I think its fair to give it credit. But it's also important to recognize that capitalism has a way of marginalizing people that aren't viable consumers. Entire cultures even.

[Lieutenant_kettch]

we could always ban them if i was wrong:rolleyes:

 

and i guarantee that it will never be allowed to happen until i become supreme dictator, i mean.. uhh... president

 

but yes, i would stake the american economy, because i am sure of myself, i wouldn't say something unless i was willing to risk something for it

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch

... monopolies have not been allowed to exist for extrended periods of time, it is a hypothesis, same as the hypothesis of a military, etc. just random ideas, and i have no factual evidence because apure monopoly has never been allowed to exist for extended periods of time....

 

I suspect that the reason is that markets won't allow it. However, "extended periods of time" might need some definition. The Bundestpost in Germany has (or had by time I departed in 1994) a monopoly on telephone service as well as telephone units from its conception in the nation. No other company was allowed to offer service, prices had to be paid at the whatever the Bundestpost set and telephones had to be purchased from the Bundestpost (though the latter was changing as I was there).

 

Monopolies have existed in many countries for many services even products, but these countries are rarely has "free" as the United States, Great Britain, etc.

 

But as to the question of why monopolies are rare, I think that the consumer is the answer. Capitalism is ultimately driven by the consumer not the manufacturer or service provider.

[Lieutenant_kettch]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I suspect that the reason is that markets won't allow it. However, "extended periods of time" might need some definition. The Bundestpost in Germany has (or had by time I departed in 1994) a monopoly on telephone service as well as telephone units from its conception in the nation. No other company was allowed to offer service, prices had to be paid at the whatever the Bundestpost set and telephones had to be purchased from the Bundestpost (though the latter was changing as I was there).

 

Monopolies have existed in many countries for many services even products, but these countries are rarely has "free" as the United States, Great Britain, etc.

 

But as to the question of why monopolies are rare, I think that the consumer is the answer. Capitalism is ultimately driven by the consumer not the manufacturer or service provider.

 

if i understand your last paragraph correctly, then we agree on some level, i think it will be ok because it is controlled ultimately but the consumer, but you think they aren't allowed because of the fear of the consumer, and the consumer has control over capitalism

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch

if i understand your last paragraph correctly, then we agree on some level, i think it will be ok because it is controlled ultimately but the consumer, but you think they aren't allowed because of the fear of the consumer, and the consumer has control over capitalism

 

NO, I think they aren't allowed because of the revolt of the consumer.

 

Consumers won't buy, find a substitute, resort to black market, or do without. One can argue that the record industry (not as a single company, but as an industry) has a defacto monopoly over music sales. The consumer is tired of paying 1960's prices (counting inflation, value of the dollar, etc.) for music that hasn't changed in its delivery. You might be buying a CD instead of an LP, but you still get about 10-15 songs from a single artist. Consumers want music now and they want only a few tracks from an album. They turn to modern technology to revolt by using P2P, burning their own, etc.

 

(not that I'm interested in turning this into a Music Piracy thread, it was the only quick analogy I coul think of on the top of my head).

[Lieutenant_kettch]

but i've been saying all along that there wouldn't being a problem with allowing monopolies to exist because if prices were driven too high, the consumers would turn to independants, etc. which appeard to be what you just said, if you look at my first few posts on this thread, that is obvious

[El Sitherino]

But this would still be bad, because the inflation from the monopoly would totally **** up the economy. We'd most likely drop into a huge recession, comparable to the likes of the great depression depending on what the company that held the monopoly produces.

[Lieutenant_kettch]

but we never will know for sure unless we try

[abcd1234]

You are saying that you would risk any kind of stability in the economy because you have a HUNCH that it would all work out if monopoles were ok. I don't want to take that risk myself.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch

but we never will know for sure unless we try

we know it doesn't work because we saw what monopolies did to soviet russia.